New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-04-05
rcpete with Wild extravaesncs which b theatrcaux
effective rather than suitably pathetic. 81

effective rather than suitably pathetic
SPECIFIC INNOVATIONS.
The ambition to play .Hamlet- is. OF corsc, nat
IRA, and noble and the actor who plays II minister's
therein to his own selfrespoct. But 1t Is Oac thing
to please yourself and another thing TO impress
Others The individual suggestivcncss OF yr. Earrce
IL generally pleasant; but making greater prcten-
sions "Hamlet than have been made by any notable
actor from tho time Of Burbage to the present ays
ne has accomplished nothing in it aside from ssns
modification Of the play-book and tue iniusioh on
some slight singularity ami considerable "bounce'"
into his technical treatment Of the part He gives
few new readings. He omits few lines that arc
usually spoken, and restores few lines that arc
usually omitted He introduces occasional vsratlons OF
the customary stage business. He presents an I'M
commonly rich and careful mount OF the tragedy, as
a whole lie reduces the supposed ages Of Hamlet"
tho "Queen.u the "Sexton," and other characters:
He indicates "Hamlet's, "madness' as wholly as
s,lmcd and ARTIFICIAL utterly relocating the subtcty
3, wisely and well set down by Colcrhige. that Ham
let's wildness is but half false. finally he tries
to play ""Hamletr IL the Prince were precocIous
lad of about eighteen and technically, he employs
the mattcr-Of-fact "commOn sense" everyday man
ner of modern drama. The result has been much
admired by many persons. 1t IL not admired nero
GOOD ACToR-BUT NOT HAMLET
dramatic embodiment may please. first by abso-
lutte truthfulness In thoroughly wcllcXpressed dcai
secondly by felicity Of artistic expression, even
sonaty in the actor who plays the part even though
the ideal be imperfect and the artistic method niec-
tOus. Mr. Barrctt's "Uamet' plcases in the last Oh
these ways. If 1t pleases at ALL Freed from anccta-
tons of novelty and from fantastic and illusory
theories and viewed s,rcply for what it Is and
not for what ir proends 10 be- this work STAMPS re'
vealed as a respectable piece Of stage mechanism by
an experienced actor, erroneous in IDEAL metallic
and inheXble In execution, possessed OF attributes
of pictorial briliancy pleasing to the tste for brisk
movement. and sufficiently fervid with human emotion
and theatrical purpose interest and satisfy an I'M
fast idious and thoughtless audencc but PERFORM
ance radically deficient Of the soul Of the character ana
Of essential inspiration and charm "Mystery," says
Mr. Barrett, ais not necessary to poetic conception,
and have been chiefly blamed for robbing Hamlet
Of his mystery, 1t misplaced censure Dir.
Barrett has not extrIded the mystery from Shakcs-
peare's "Hamlet-: he has only extruded it from his
own 1t Is not tho character that he has cxpaineds
il il himself There is difference between the two.
Mental and spiritual in the presence OF sub
lime and imaginative subject. must not be mistaken
for superior and exhaustive comprehension Of it, Tho
character Of Hamlet Is not lumined by being made
commonplace There is no victory for actor in
reducing a colossal poetic conception 10 the level Ok
prosaic dulness 1t is saying nothing Of weight or
pertnence say that all complexity disappears from
"Iamletr under this particular kind Of treatment.
and that is made clear to tho meanest understand
ing. That is not the understanding for which he was
created There subjects from which tho COM
plexy, the awe, the pathos, the grandeur neverJ
disappear. There aspects Of mans SPIRITUAL
nature and destiny from which-at least while tho
state Of mortality shall endure,-the element OF mys-
terry can never be dsioned and the glamor Of poetic
lovellness can never be dispelled.